Rumors are circulating about a possible successor to the Olympus OM-D E-M5. According to rumor site 43rumors.com, the camera is likely to be called the Olympus E-M5II or the Olympus E-M5 Mark II and is said to feature a 16MP sensor but with a sensor shift function allowing users to boost resolution up to an equivalent 40MP. This follows a rumor from November that Olympus has stopped production of the E-M5 model.

According to 4/3 Rumors, the information was provided by an anonymous source and later confirmed through trusted sources - whatever that means. Although not officially confirmed, it is reported the E-M5II's sensor-shift feature will create ~40MP images out of up to eight exposures per shot.

If true, it is possible that Olympus will utilize its 5-axis stabilization system to achieve this - shifting the sensor in tiny increments between exposures, and then combining them to produce the final high-resolution image. We've seen Hasselblad do something very similar in its medium-format cameras.

43rumors.com reported in November via an anonymous source that the model will also feature weather sealing, 4k video, and 24/25/30fps options.

At this point we have no further details, but if true, it's likely that Olympus could use the CP+ show in Japan in February. Naturally, if full details should emerge, we'll have full coverage here at dpreview.com.

I'm surprised there isn't more DPR discussion on this topic since it's only a week away or so!I think a sensor shift 40mp would be a brilliant idea. Having a MF camera in your pocket for landscapes, portraits and still life - would be a game changer. And you can still go the conventional way for subjects in motion.

The perfect travel kit would be two e-m5 mark lls, with the new voigtlander 10.5/0.95, the 12-40/2.8, the 40-150/2.8 pro and the new 300/2.8. All that and weather sealed. It should cover every National Geographic type travel from landscape to wildlife. Throw in the 60 macro to complete the kit.

Pentax created "fake" anti-aliasing filter by shifting the sensor sightly when the shot is done. So you can disable/enable the low pass/anti aliasing filter whenever you want ;)Very clever. Now Olympus open another breach.It shows how amazing sensor shifting can be, apart pure stabilization.

For moving subjects it is probably going to be unusable (probably double exposure).But for portraits, landscape and such, it is going to be amazing.

It would still have the same aspect ratio for the same sensor. they are only going to shift it around by half a pixel space on X and Y axes. You are either going to boost sensitivity (and unless you are using a different sensor type, that means more noise), or increase exposure times.

It remains to be seen how they consolidate it all - it will be done with software algorithms - just as pixels can be paired, they will probably fill in the blanks where underexposure occurs with information from the adjacent shifted position pixel - but this has it's limitations, because if both adjacent ones are underexposed, you will probably see increased noise, or decreased sharpness as a result. It's that, or increase exposure times, but the same scene.

In order to make things ubiquitous, they will likely report one shutter speed, while the real speed is actually halved, so photographers don't have to relearn to use this camera.

If the idea is good enough for Hasselblad then why not?Other than the pixel peepers 16 mp would seem to be enough for a good photograph and at the end of the day that is what we aspire to.Adding 'equivalent' pixels is good for marketing & maybe a leg up to some photographers.If the concept is good for the EM5 then the same concept will soon be used on the EM1.Brand 'bashing' is becoming quite a pain and offers nothing to the discussion of photography or camera 'use' The best photos are taken by good photographers not good cameras.However, a good camera is the one you take with you not the one you leave at home.

Olympus is on record as saying that 16MP is the sweet spot for the enthusiast sector ... if they offer sensor shift tech for more mp then it is a bonus - not something to ridicule ... even now the E-M5 is still more camera than most can handle. When your gear list is more awe-inspiring than your photographs then its time to step back and reassess... I've seen amazing photos in some of the challenges using even high-end P&S cameras.

GWYNOXY, amazing photos can be made on phones too, but to convince a higher-end enthusiast to spend hundreds on a camera is a different proposition. The manufacturers are aware they must offer some marketing punch to get people to hand over the money (if not technical punch). 16mp might be all that is necessary but Olympus said the same thing abut stopping at 12mp.

@Melvin, hasselblad also brought us an obscenely expensive rebranded sony nex camera in the past... so to me, that's not necessarily a reference.

@gwynoxy, correction, I believe that the mft consortium is on record for saying that 16mp is the sweet-spot for that given sensor size. it has nothing to do with what they think people want - it is a technical reason.

The EM5 Mark 2 is the refresh Olympus needed to make. When they introduced the EM1 and EM10 it looked like the end of the EM5 line, leaving many consumers with no clear upgrade path if we wanted to retain the smallest form factor that was weather proof and built like a tank.

So this Mark 2 version is a sight for sore eyes. I am personally looking for better manual focus aids like focus peaking, remote control, fast image uploads direct from the camera, better 1080 video and the zero shock setting introduced on the EM1. I will happily upgrade for these features.

Although not something I would use often, the 40mpx feature is a very smart option to provide in the EM5 Mark 2. The form factor of the EM5 is perfect for mountain climbers and adventurers looking for a tough waterproof and yet light and compact camera to take trekking up mountains etc. When they get to the top of the mountain, I expect that 40mpxs will be a very welcome option.

Canon and Nikon don't do FF/APS-C sensor shifting, as far as i know. Because they always pushed ppl over (expansive) lens stab ;)Pentax do it for a long time.Sony started recently with new Alpha line (NEX are not sensor stab), and probably going to move some lines in this domain ;)

Honestly, for my purposes, I'd be much happier with a system that pixel bins the 16mp output down to 8mp: I hardly ever print above 10 x 8" and I'm sick of 16mp RAW files eating up my hard drives (and anyone who is about to say "hard disk space is cheap" is welcome to put their money where their mouth is and buy me the replacement drives I'll need sometime before February.)

Well, this is nothing new , really, Medium Format digital backs had been using sensor shift to facilitate capturing of all chromatic info through multiple exposure. And stitching of multiple exposure. whether those could be employed in a more dynamic manner ( How about someone needing such an option on a scene that require using 1/4000 shutter , would be a bit hard to shift the sensor in such short duration and not to mention shift it in controlled and very precise manner ) But since pentax had already demonstrate similar utilization of sensor shift ( on their psuedo AA filer mode for K-3 ) it seems viable enough.

That which did employed in Medium and Large format digital back used to demand the photo to be taken on stationary subject and require very solid tripod fixture ( the multiple exposure is triggered as a series of bracket, sort of , except its not bracket of exposure value or WB but bracket of sensor positions ). I would wager it can easily be done on these smaller formats

It depends...sometimes "rumours" are send by the company itself.But they don't want anything "official". So skipping them could be an error from "news" point of view...and a bad choice from the company too ;)Like all those supposed "rumours" from Apple.We all know, and since Apple debuts, they are from Apple themselves.

Hopefully this could be implemented with any camera that has a sensor cleaner that uses shake, providing the control of the movement can be made fine enough. It's only of interest for the photography of static objects.

Well, I hope there are more advantages to this than just getting increased resolution. There are only a handful of native m43 lenses that can handle 40MP of true resolution. Hopefully there are some dynamic range advantages that come along with this.

You do not understand the process. The camera will take 8 images while slightly changing the position of the receiving 16 MP sensor. It will then combine all those images into a single one, using the extra data obtained by shifting the sensor slightly to the sides and up/down. You will get nicer lines and extra image data will appear because the Bayer sensor limitations will no longer apply, you will be having red and blue photodiodes moved to where previously you only had green ones. So extra image information will be available to reconstruct the true image. No more guessing.

There will probably be many limitations. The technique will be primarily for landscapes, macros, portraits. My guess is that IBIS will have to be turned off in such case, to allow sensor shift. No sports action.

For everything where detail matters or is at least appreciated. But it is not just mpixels. If I am correct, it is also colour fidelity and colour depth etc that is affected.

So landscape, macro, portrait, cityscape, pics of food, architecture. I would like 100 Mpixels for that. Even more. But not now as that is going to very difficult to process with current tech (or getting rather expensive).

I've been wondering why all those manufacturers like Pentax, Sony and Olympus didn't consider this earlier. Especially Pentax has shown that they can control the IS system very accurately on small scales (simulated AA filter).

It's about time this function becomes an industry standard in cameras with IBIS.

I believe that Ricoh offered similar technology in their 3.3MP RDC-7 back in 2000. From their marketing brochure:

"There are three Pro Mode options-all based on Ricoh's innovative Image Enhancement Technology. Pro-L mode shifts the CCD by one pixel to take two shots that a Ricoh-developed algorithm composes into one image. This boosts resolution and definition by 20% without increasing image size.

It seems like the pixel-shifting may have been successful, to a degree, in getting more resolution. However, it had a lot of limitations. The camera had to be on a tripod, the subject had to be stationary, and it took 35-seconds to 2-minutes to process each shot.

downsampling helps with dynamic range and noise so yes, through that, increasing resolution WITHOUT changing dynamic range and noise means that for a given resolution the dynamic range and noise are improved.

No it would not. Both are a function of the sensor prior to being wiggled about. You could try to get a larger image and down sample it to reduce noise but given that it is the same sensor taking the shot from multiple fractionally different locations, I am not sure how effective that would be.Dynamic range would be unchanged.

Dheorl, If this were true then cameras with good DR would have good ISO and vs versa in a predictable ratio 123 ISO = 1.23 DR but this is not the case. DR is not related to ISO. The d7100 at base ISO has DR exceeding cameras with better ISO performance.

Bjorn_L, it's multiple exposures. You are not following that this increases resolution without increasing noise. Or ISO. Or anything other than movement between exposures and any digital artifacts from stitching.

Mosc, I am following that. But it is multiple s shots from the same sensor with the same exposure settings. This is not HDR, and so I see nothing which would improve base ISO or DR. Only potentially raise the pixel count.

Please read it again within context of this conversation and I am sure the DR comments will make sense. ISO performance does not improve by raising pixel count. Canon, for example, has multiple times raised pixel count without improvement to their ISO performance. That is a function of SNR not pixels. You can generally downsample to reduce noise but that is not the same as not having the noise.

Do you not know what SNR means? Simply put it is amount of bad data to good data. Increasing the amount of data does not change this as it is a ratio. This is what is ISO noise. Read up on it at DXO or other site if you need more info.

Ok, so say you took a perfectly aligned and stitched 4 image panorama, then down sized it to the size of one of the original 4 photos. Are you saying the overall noise of the final image would be no better?

That might mask the noise. I would be surprised if it did not. This is not the same as saying it has lower ISO noise. A d800 is 36mp, it has very low noise not because you can down sample the image but because the signal to noise ratio is very good.

This is kind of like multi pass film scanning which primarily helps bring out details in the shadows. It really should help with DR and noise I think, but this technical stuff really isn't my strength. :)

No Texinwien you are failing to understand something very very basic.If you have an image which is 80% signal 20% noise. And you combine it with 3 more images which are the same ratio then the resulting image would still be 80% signal and 20% noise.... just 4 times as large.Would the SNR be the same for 4 exposures? Yes, given that the exact same exposure settings, same scene and same sensor would be used.Signal to noise for the thick headed or professional fan boys is just the amount of good data vs bad data in a data set. When you increase the data set size the ratio it contains is the same (DR & ISO is the same).(80+80+80+80) = 320(20+20+20+20) = 80320+80= 400320/400 = 80% signalDown sampling can potentially hide some noise. But like I explained above this doesn't change how much noise was there originally.The Nikon d800 has a good SNR because it has a higher % of good data to bad data, not because you can down-sample its 36mp images to some smaller image size.

Due to the random nature of noise I don't think your very simple maths accurately represents it. Taking multiple pictures to reduce noise in an image is a well recognised technique, all the olympus does is also use it to present a larger output.

You even admit in your post that downsampling can hide some noise, so if you took a 16MP image with the olympus, then took a 40MP image using this technology and down sampled it to 16MP you agree the image that was originally 40MP will look cleaner?

Where that exact noise will be and how bad it will look is (as you say) random. However SNR is fairly predictable. So if you took 4 photos with the same settings on of the same scene with the same sensor there would be some variation in where the noise is and what it looks like but the actual amount of noise vs the amount of "noise-free" data would be the same.Downsampling a 40mp image to a 16mp image will almost certainly produce a lower noise image. But as I said over and over, hiding noise by turning a 40mp image into a smaller size is not SNR it does not change how much noise there was only how much you see at a smaller resolution.Consider the similar resolution Nikon d800. If it had a SNR of 90 at whatever ISO is was used at you can't change that image down to 16mp and claim it had an SNR of 99 simply because you managed to hide most of the noise by discarding data.What you do in post is what you do in post. It has nothing to do with what the camera produced.

Wrong Bjorn. Totally wrong. SNR increases in quadrature. That is, noise increases at the square root of the increase in the number of photons captured. SNR = sqrt(N), where N on the right side equals number of photons captured when discussing photon slot noise. Of course, if we take 4 images of the same scene with the same settings, a blend of the four images will have the bedight of 4x as many photos as any of the single images, which will, in turn, give the blend a full so of improved SNR, compared to any of the single frames. I use this technique with excellent results where bracketing isn't practical. A blend of 16 photos of the same scene with the same settings quadruples SNR / increases it by two stops (compared to any of the single frames). Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise , Examples: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54799810

Correction: "a blend of the four images will have the bedight of 4x as many photos as any of the single images, which will, in turn, give the blend a full so of improved SNR" SHOULD BE "a blend of the four images will have the benefit of 4x as many photons as any of the single images, which will, in turn, give the blend a full stop of improved SNR". Stupid autocorrect on my tablet.

Still don't get the OBVIOUS texinwien?You are ignoring the point that more photons aren't being captured, just the same amount over and over.And more images aren't being blended. Blended is photo stacking which does not increase resolution, it would be a 16mp final image.You are confusing HDR and similar techniques with photo stitching.

Sorry, Bjorn, but you're just completely confused about how SNR works. I suggest you take it to the Photographic Science and Technology forum, where you may end up learning a few things.

If we capture X photons in one exposure, we will capture 4X photons in four exposures. If we stitch or blend these together, the SNR of the resulting image will be 1 stop better than any of the single exposures. That's simple physics.

I'm not confusing this with HDR, either, since I do both HDR, blending (of equal as opposed to bracketed exposures) and stitching.

The bottom line is that SNR goes up with the number of photons captured, and blending or stitching multiple exposures obviously and logically means that the final image will have the benefit of having been created from more photons than any single capture, which, by the laws of physics means the final image will have a higher SNR than any of the individual exposures.

I need to correct my previous post. "If we stitch or blend" should read "If we stitch and downsample or blend", and "and blending or stitching multiple exposures" should read "and blending or stitching and downsampling multiple exposures". I thought this would be clear from the context of the previous discussion, but re-reading suggests that it may not be.

The point is, if we combine multiple exposures, whether via stitching and downsizing or by blending, into a final image that is the same size as the original, individual captures, the resulting image will have higher SNR than any of the single captures.

Indeed, it does - downsizing increases DR and SNR. Again, you're simply mistaken, and you don't know what you're talking about, or how SNR is calculated. I linked it above. Go read it and spend some time trying to understand it.

The simple rule is that the SNR of an image due to photon shot noise is sqrt(N), where N is the number of photons captured.

I'm not arguing physics, were I to do so you wouldn't understand that either. Your ignorant blather that downsizing has anything to do with photons is so far that it is mind boggling that anyone, no matter how ill-versed would post it.

Now you're just being picky. The fact is 4 images when combined in a suitable way and output at the same size as one single capture with the same camera will result in a cleaner image. I don't see how you can possibly argue that.

Olympus successfully reinvented hdr mode and renamed it sensor shift. Seriously, a 3 picture bracket shot would still be better. This sensor shift design is more of gimmick. It is still in reality 16mp natively and being marketed as 40mp by virtue of stacking which is in a way somehow similar to what is now commonly known as hdr mode in cameras.

Wrong. HDR bracketing and sensor shift technology are two totally different things.If you think this is simply a gimmick, you need to let Hasselblad know as well the the Olympus Medical Division since they have fallen for the same gimmick.

"May be"....we'll see. It is only a rumour no one can say to what extend it is usefull or not. But Hasselblad using this too, it is used for telescopes, it is used for medical instrument to get better resolution shows this in itself is not a gimmick. But it depends on how it is used.

like I said, it's use is nothing different than doing an HDR picture. just look at where and what the application is by Hasselblad and Olympus of the said sensor shifting. that sort of thing has been done in the past. sensor shifting to improve resolution of still, mostly inanimate objects in science, medical and landscape. different old tech but similar approach and methodology or concept in attaining high resolution which is very much like HDR. if rumor is true, then it is disappointing. it is still 16MP and would certainly not replace a higher MP camera's resolving capability no matter how you read and believe that 40MP marketing slogan. do that with a 20/24MP sensor + HDR, the higher MP camera would still produce better than that marketed 40MP resolution. there is just more pixels in higher MP cameras. there is no magic formula that a lower MP camera would produce better resolution than a native higher MP camera. only stupid would believe that.

And you need to carefully look at the comparative Hasselblad images in the 4/3 Rumors article, and then assure yourself again that there is no difference -- it's all a trick our minds play on us, because we stupidly believe in the 40MP marketing slogan.

you can cry all you want daddyO. that 40MP marketing slogan is nothing more than a trick not different from doing an HDR picture. so don't be mad if someone is not blind as you to believe that it's the magical unicorn.

@ jennyrae. It is not a sigma merrill (foveon). Did you take a look at the way the Hasselblad resolves? While it is not a gimmick I think, it is not ideal either of course. Hence I want Oly to use a sensor that is at least 21 MPixel but preferablye 24 Mp. I also hope they give us a choice so we can chose 2,4, 6 shots etc so we can chose 36, 50 and 64 MPixels for instance.

HDR on my GH4 is always JPG (I barely use it), I think that is the case with most camera's? If so, you are restricted. I read that at least on the Hassy it is RAW and if so on the OLy, you get more leverage here.

I wonder though about shuttershock which is noticable on just one16MPixel pic. How about 2-4 consecutive pics togeter? Shuttershock means the shot if OFF by more than 1 (let alone 1/2) pixel...How are they going to control this?

Of course there are downsides if excecuted badly, but suppose they do it in the best possible way. There is another advantage: the sensor at 2,5 * 16 MPixels will not outresolve a lens. While a 40 MPixel sensor would.

But personally, I find 40 MPixels in this way too low to really be something special. There is gap with the Samsung NX1 but it is not very big. Also, compare dfto FF they already have 36 MPixels.

So I hope they can do this:- 24 Mpixel sensor, 60 MPixel output (user defined choice of course)- 13- 13,5 eV DxO DR- ISO performance at least as good as current sensortech, so cropping that 60 MPixel output to 30 Mpixel or so will get us terrific ISO performance.- Preferably with very good IBIS so you do not have to use a tripod.

If only you could imagine how happy I felt when I read this rumour! Last night I was browsing through the web and hit 43rumors.com; when I read that the E-M5's successor would have sensor shift, I went out running and shouting 'Olympus will have sensor shift!' 'Olympus will have sensor shift!'Unfortunately I happened to be wearing undies only when I jumped off the chair and went to the street shouting out my exhilaration. Some neighbour complained about my behaviour and I was arrested. The cops took me before a judge and he decided I should be seen by a psychiatrist. I was duly taken to one, who counselled the court to intern me in a psychiatric facility at the local hospital. That's where I'm writing from. Curiously, my inmate is also a gearhead. He's here because he showed too much enthusiasm about the new E-M5 having PDAF. Not that I'm crazy, mind you: it's just that those outside Gearland show no comprehension for people like me.(OK, so I'm crazy.)

even if half of the rumors are true, its still leaps and bound compared to other manufacturers nickle and diming policy. oly probably leaked the rumor so that they could steal customers who are hoping to buy lx100 or a7ii this xmas. speaking of..wishlist in-camera hdr and panorama, focus peaking and wifi..common its stupid not to add this exsiting tech .

now imagine 2 months from now when people are selling there used em5 in amazon...under or around $400 ...saw 1 already at $380..for a magnesium, 5- axis ibis, weather resistant body. probably has 150k+ shutter count. mine has 100k and still works fine.

oops.. i guess i was thinking of the EM10. Anyway.. the rumored EM5II has some new tech which i imagine will migrate to the EM1II (with sensor shift i hope. i frequently only take my Em1/12-40 with me. it would nice to be able to crap the crop out of it.. i mean.. crop the crap..) See what happens when your hair turns white ?

Regarding the discussion of frames per second (fps), and whether this technology may be used for handheld photos (or even action photos):

The processors on these cameras are getting faster all of the time. Look at Olympus' closest clone, Panasonic. Their GH4 can extract useable images per each frame from their 4k video. Let's assume you can get a decent image per frame at 30fps. Now, drop down to 1080p and maybe you could get a decent image per frame at 60fps. Go down further to 720p and maybe pick up 120fps.

Granted, the photos and resolutions are getting smaller per shot, but then you recombine them to regain your higher resolution. It is early in the game, and these are rough numbers, but you can kind of see where it is going as we get faster and faster processors manipulating these pixels.

If Oly does this right, you might get 16mpxl photos for action shots, 8mpxl photos for crisp fast-action shots and 40mpxl photos for still life / scenery.

Most likely you don't get the idea. :)Simple merging photos does not make the resolution higher. You have 4 10MPx shots of a plum (same frame, same exposure).If you overlay them, you get... 1 10 MPx shot of a plum. Most likely worse than the each of the 4 you started with.

The idea behind this sensor-shift method is... the sensor shift. You make few exposures shifted precisely by 1/2 or 1 pixel and apply a special interpolation algorithm.

Also, each algo has to be developed accordingly for how you record the information (how many shots and how shifted).So if Olympus makes a method for 8 shots (or takes it from Hasselblad) it will only work for 8 shots.They would have to make new calculations for 9 and 10 and 31 frames. And actually the more frames you'd take, the less gain there is.

4K 30fps = 248 million pixels a second1080p 60fps = 124 million pixels a second720p 120 fps = 111 million pixels a second40mp at even 5 fps = 200 million pixels a second

Yes, 40mp at considerable burst speeds is a serious amount of pixels to process ignoring the fact that the 40MP is a processing nightmare because of the math involved.

Really, 8 frames of 16mp even if the output is 40mp is basically worse than 128 mp (16x8) straight for the camera to process because it has to do more work. I doubt seriously that the EM5II would give more than 2fps in this mode, probably 1fps.

Whatever new sensor shift / virtual pixel maximization or 4K capability may be presented, the crucial point for me (living in a PAL country) was and is the missing choice betweeen different frame rates like 24, 25 and 30, which is overdue since the E-M5 has been introduced.

Of course, no point for photography only. But I'd like to have a compact, universally usable camera for film AND video and I'd really love to have one with built-in image stablization (for my manual lenses), which the otherwise fabulous GH4 does not offer.

So, there are rumours, there is hope - looking forward to Oly's next camera revelations!

Olympus are the most innovative of all the Camera manufacturers. Remember live view first appeared on an Olympus camera. Olympus film SLRs had TTL flash metering long before the other manufacturers. When Olympus innovates, all the others soon follow. The original Olympus OM 35mm film SLR was the first compact film SLR, soon all the others followed. They may not have the resources of the bigger manufacturers to sustain their technological leads, but they are always ahead of the curve with innovation.

But not to anywhere near the degree of Olympus. TTL metering, TTL flash metering, ESP metering, Spot metering, multi spot metering, Video on a DSLR, although they did not think there was a market for it! Flip out screen on a DSLR, dust filter for the sensor, live view etc etc.

There is a strong inverse correlation between innovation and profitability with cameras. Maybe it's just that the underdogs feel compelled to do more and sell for less. I wonder if this is something Olympus can license.

@SteB - methinks you are a bit one eyed, But - of course - I should really not be so cruel to take you out of your fluffy and rose Olympus fan dream :) There is lots of invention in digital cameras - and most are not made by Olympus. But - it does not really matter - does it?

OTF flash metering was invented and patented by Minolta. Olympus used it under license ( before Minolta used it themselves).You forgot the f280 flash, wasn't that the first electronic flash you could use faster than the sync speed?

Olympus might seem like the most innovative camera company... if you're TWELVE. :o

Photography in it's core elements evolves very slowly. There are some key improvements which really changed it.The idea of photography itself, flexible film rolls, automatic metering, color photography, digital sensor, AF, single lens cameras, image stabilization - these are some of the true milestones (of various importance, obviously) in the industry. Today we take them for granted.

Is anything Olympus did more important than the invention of digital sensor itself or implementing autofocus?You've ever heard of Kodak or Minolta?

Seriously. If Olympus had suddenly disappeared with all its "inventions", photography would hardly change...

"Olympus might seem like the most innovative camera company... if you're TWELVE. :o"

That's a silly facetious remark. I bought an Olympus OM2N, well over 30 years ago, and it had TTL flash metering. I think the Canon T90 was the first Canon SLR to feature it and that came out some time later. The Nikon F3 was the first Nikon to feature TTL flash metering and that came out some time after the OM2N.

As for the other jibes. I owned a Nikon 35mm film SLR system a long time back and more recently I've shot more with a Canon DSLR system, although I still keep my old E-1. So I'm hardly a fanboi. I like Olympus cameras because the first decent cameras I used was an Olympus Trip 35, but I've never exclusively used Olympus cameras. However, anyone that doesn't think they are a major innovator doesn't know their camera history. Of course other cameras innovate, it's just Olympus think outside the box more than most.

Who innovates most is such a forum peeing contest. What ever innovation turns out to be golden is good on its own merit however and the Super Sonic Wave Filter that came out in 2004 solved the dust problem conclusively before everyone else really nailed it (or tried to address the issue as the case may be). That was a good innovation. So is 5-axis IS. I'd say that Sony has good sensor innovation and their RX line and "7" line is quite innovative.

Sounds like a gimmick, grasping for straws to extend the life of the current 4/3 sensor. I'd rather commission a better sensor from sony like a quad RX100 III sensor for 80mp and work on other improvement that should come first...better AF, more fps, more battery life, better software, better video. But the light gathered by the 4/3 sensor is what it is and the lumympus universe has already many great cameras. Both manifacturers built their ceiling before the walls when they married the 4/3 sensor.

I agree that it sounds like a gimmick, but a similar technology has been used on recent high-end home theater projectors to shift the panels to display a higher resolution image. And from the reports I've read it actually works, allowing a 1080p projector to display an image that approached 4K resolution and detail.

So I'm excited to see it on a camera, and I don't think they would be doing it if it didn't work.

The 4/3 sensor is exactly what makes the Micro Four Thirds system so appealing. I suspect you do not use an m4/3's camera or lenses.Go to your local photo gear retailer and pick up an Olympus 45mm f/1.8 or the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens. Then put either on an E-M1 or E-M5 and do a few shots.I think you will see that Olympus and Panasonic started with the m4/3's system with a full set of blueprints.

I appreciate the advise, but my first two DSLR's were Olympus (e-410 and e-520), and after switching to Pentax a few years ago, I picked up a PEN E-P1 for my small camera. So I'm well aware of the strengths, and weaknesses, of the system. I have also avidly followed reviews of newer m43 gear.

The lenses that you mentioned are great, but I would not say they're better or more useful for me than my Sigma 85mm 1.4 or my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8.

My daughters do indoor activities such as ballet and gymnastics where I frequently find myself pushing the limits of my sensor's capabilities in order to freeze the action, even at f1.4. And I've examined the RAW files from the latest m43 cameras, and they continue to stumble at high ISO compared to their APS-C equivalents.

But I also shoot in the studio, so if Olympus pulls off this 40MP equivalent thing, then I might be willing to live with the high ISO. And who knows, the technology may help at high ISO's as well.

I admire Panasonic and Olympus for picking their sandbox and sticking to it. I am sure great innovation will come from trying to do more within the limits of the 4/3 although I think its approaching stationary phase of growth at this point. Definitely they make cameras that keep their value. An em1 is just as great a camera today as it was 2 y ago when it came out.

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.